By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Johns Hopkins University v. 454 Life Sciences Corp., Civil Action No. 13-1853-LPS (D.Del., May 2, 2016), the Court granted John Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) motion for partial summary judgment of a priority date of no later than June 5, 2003 with respect to the Count in the Interference. The Interference involves a single count with the interfering subject matter represented by claim 1 of Plaintiff JHU’s U.S. Patent Application No. 12/361,690 (JHU’s “’690 application”) and claim 52 of Defendant 454 Life Sciences Corporation’s U.S. Patent Application No. 13/33,240 (454’s “’240 application”).
Among other things, JHU cited the Decision and Final Judgment of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“the Board”) in its favor on the issue. Id. at 11. In its decision, the Board concluded that “JHU had established by a preponderance of the evidence that it conceived of the subject matter of the Count by June 5, 2003 and that the JHU inventors were reasonably diligent for the month of June 5, 2003 until the filing of provisional application No. 60/485,301 on July 5, 2003, i.e., JHU’s constructive reduction to practice.” Id. at 11-12. In granting JHU’s motion for summary judgment on the issue, the District Court determined that JHU “met its burden at summary judgment by producing evidence which shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, conception and diligent reduction to practice sufficient to support a priority date of June 5, 2003.” Id. at 16. The District Court also found that 454 failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact with respect to the evidence relied on by JHU. Id.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.